If you could make an Imperial ship legal, which one(s) would it be?

[Sigoroth]

"getting a buff" is the biggest problem we're seeing as we go through this process. With the exception of ONLY the Devastation (which is already ridiculously under-costed), every suggestion for ships in the current rules is for some kind of profile improvement. If we take this kind of up-creep on-board, down the line the trend will be to compensate by up-creeping the ships that get left behind by the changes, and it becomes a never-ending cycle, which is the biggest problem with WH40k today.

The alternative to this "profile creep" is to nerf the used ships. After all, if you're going to balance weak ships against strong ships you either need to boost the weak ones or nerf the strong ones right? So, why do people want boosts instead of nerfs generally? Because generally there are more balanced ships than unbalanced. The Lunar, Gothic, Dominator and Dauntless are all balanced ships. In what way balanced you ask? Well, they're internally balanced (ie, against each other) and they're balanced against analogues from other fleets. Soooo if you were going to try to fix the Voss CLs by nerfing other ships, you'd have to nerf an awful lot of them.

Also, I've never seen the point of unbalanced ships. Oh I understand that there's reason to not maximise every system on every ship, but since these ships don't fill slots (ie, you can take one ship, which do you want, an Emperor or a Sword?) they instead cost points, then there's no reason why they can't all be balanced apart from the mathematical difficulty of doing so. So "up-creep" would be fine as it's correcting a problem of the ship that makes it unbalanced.

The Voss CL's needed a tweak. We took it on board, and the Voss CL's are improved: for no profile change, they are now cheaper. Incidentally, this price change (-10 points across the board) will apply to their AdMech variants as well.

OK, I fail to see how this is any different to the up-creep you're mentioning. Well, you've just improved the Voss CLs ... what about ships X, Y and Z!? A fix is a fix. One isn't a case of creep where the other isn't. Also, this "fix" of just lowering the cost doesn't give the ship a role in the fleet, a purpose for being built, nor a justification for being so slow.

[Sigoroth]

I know players want more from these ships, but they by intent simply were not designed to offer that to the Imperial fleet. To be honest, we wouldn't be offering any of this at all except that it fits the actual models that were produced quite well. To be honest, the only reason broadside-strong CL's need this at all is to give them a chance to close with the enemy prow on before swinging their guns around. That is the ONLY reason this is even being entertained, and the longest part of the discussion was to drop the price and change NOTHING as opposed to even offering the up-armored prow as an option at all.

Then the intent of these ships must have been pure decoration.

[Sigoroth]

@Ad'A

The Endeavour and Endurance should be identical costs. If Smotherman comes up with something different then that's because Smotherman is crap.

If you gave the Voss CLs 6 prow torps then they would be more powerful than a Daunt (simply +2WB broadsides). I quite like 2 torps and 2WB they have. They're a broadside ship with some torps to clear fighter screens or make opportunistic attacks.

[BaronIveagh]

If we're claiming WYSIWYG as justification for profile increases, make the Exorcist 260ish and 3 lbs on each side to bring it in line with the Styx.  It could use it, though Horizon and I disagree on this issue.

[Sigoroth]

If we're claiming WYSIWYG as justification for profile increases, make the Exorcist 260ish and 3 lbs on each side to bring it in line with the Styx.  It could use it, though Horizon and I disagree on this issue.

There is a case for such an argument, though the Exorcist isn't unbalanced and the fluff tends to view them as old junkers that are pretty much useless. I don't find this terribly convincing myself. It would be more convincing if they were civilian grade materials. Anyway, if we're going to go down that route the Retaliator needs the boost much much more.

[BaronIveagh]

If we're claiming WYSIWYG as justification for profile increases, make the Exorcist 260ish and 3 lbs on each side to bring it in line with the Styx.  It could use it, though Horizon and I disagree on this issue.

There is a case for such an argument, though the Exorcist isn't unbalanced and the fluff tends to view them as old junkers that are pretty much useless. I don't find this terribly convincing myself. It would be more convincing if they were civilian grade materials. Anyway, if we're going to go down that route the Retaliator needs the boost much much more.

Yeah, there is that problem that in 40k older = better, not worse.  I'm not saying for it's current point cost it's not balanced, I'm just saying that it's not as attractive as a Mars, despite it's higher HP.  And they say that of all the Grand Cruisers, even though some are actually superior to some BCs that cost more.

[horizon]

I think it is equal attractive as a Mars (surely for 40 or 55pts less!). Depending on the rest of the fleet ofcourse.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

@Ad'A

The Endeavour and Endurance should be identical costs. If Smotherman comes up with something different then that's because Smotherman is crap.

If you gave the Voss CLs 6 prow torps then they would be more powerful than a Daunt (simply +2WB broadsides). I quite like 2 torps and 2WB they have. They're a broadside ship with some torps to clear fighter screens or make opportunistic attacks.

Well, as I said, Smotherman isn't a perfect system but it does accurately get the costs of a lot of the ships in the BBB though there are some fudging needed for some so it can be used as a reference not necessarily as the basis.

It could very well be that the Endeavor and Endurance though it might also be true that the Endeavor is undercosted since we do not really have a formula for the ships. For now, we'll go with the existing cost.

With respect to the prow weapons, my preference is still using only one weapon system.  I can see the benefit of the additional FP2 WB for the Endurance. I do not see how FP2 can help the Str 2 lances of the Endurance unless of course one can take them in pairs or support the Endurance with an Endeavor.

I will try to proxy them and try them out to see how it goes but if it turns out I need another ship to compliment the Endurance, then I might as well just stick with the Dauntless.

[Zelnik]

I suppose I am the only one who thinks the proposed changes are actually a good choice... Keep it up guys!

[RCgothic]

I think it's a step in the right direction, but they still need more.

[Zelnik]

I may be a wooden conservative on the issue, but I am failing to see what more you need.

What they are offering is WAY more then what most of us were asking for. It's not -just- a points reduction, we get a small heap of options for the vessel. I agree with the HA that we do not need to change it's profile, mostly what it needed was a points reduction and a few tweaks here and there.

The only thing that i could see as viable is the +5cm speed bump, for the sake of it being a light cruiser.

[horizon]

Hi Zelnik,

many/most/some did not ask for point reduction.

We asked for:
a 6+ prow. For no points in addition to the existing profile (with 90*).

But what do we get:
a point reduction and the option to get a 6+ prow but drop the 90* turn.

I rather have 90* on a light cruiser of the line (!) then 25cm speed.

[RCgothic]

The Smotherman totally fails to take into account the reduced effectiveness of low LB capacity though. 2x2 AC is roughly 2/3 as effective as 4AC, which gets the Defiant a 9pt points break.

So what do we want from the Voss? We want a Light Cruiser of the line. A ship that stays with the cruisers (so 20cm speed), can get into the line of battle (so 6+ prow), support the cruisers on their way in (modest forward torps), fight it out when it gets there (broadside firepower), and, unlike the larger cruisers, react to changing battlefield conditions (90' turns).

The Defiant additionally needs torps to make it worth reloading, and trading the Lances for FP4 WBs (A downgrade from 2 lances)

[BaronIveagh]

Or, instead of fighting with it as a line cruiser, give it 25cm and +2 AC and use it as a baby flattop.

[lastspartacus]

The point is, I think, the Dauntless is still a more desirable ship.  Also, they just don't bring anything new or exciting to the table, nothing really different but moving some weapon systems to the broadisdes and losing strong frontal fire.  Whoopdeedoo!